look, and some of these nations that say they want to get involved -- if they think they can get involved, it should be up to them. it seems like we are always in a war or something. i would say no to this one. here is john on our others line. iparty called my representative. however, i do have a suggestion and this is what i said to them. through the united nations, there is an international courts headquartered in the netherlands. i am curious why, if this is a use of weapons of mass destruction, a crime against

humanity, why could we not bring the evidence to the court and find out who is responsible? to court and allow the world to participate in a trial, so to speak. you could have evidence presented, both sides could give their side and then a judgment could be made that would keep the u.s. out of it, keep the u.s. out of taking the lead. it would certainly give the president an opportunity to duck out of this red line. do you think syria would be able to participate in that? caller: i think for the

united states to respond just with weapons as the president seems determined to do, it is going to create blowback. it always happens and will probably create more terrorists than not. i think personally we are a nation of justice and a nation of laws. the moral leadership would be to go to an international court where the whole world could view a fair trial that is carried on by people in the hague where people have no ties to syria. he could all stand back and brought toce whomever is responsible. i don't know why i haven't heard that and maybe you have some more insight. i do think it is something where there is a real fair way look at this for all sides. we are asking you how

you would want congress to vote on this resolution. comments on facebook and twitter and also by phone. here is a look at facebook. terry and tony talking to their texas representatives. and says if you happen to see someone in the military today walk up to them and ask if you could shake their hand and thank them for it your freedom. say little prayer that god will look after them. .acebook.com/c-span about that during his questions of secretaries kerry and hegel in the senate foreign relations committee. get tos not often that i complement the president. when i first heard that the president was going to come to congress, i was proud that he

was my president. i did not vote for him and i'm still opposed to quite a few times, but i am proud for him. that well if i lose the vote then i will go ahead and do the bombing anyway. that does concern me. i get word that he doesn't mean it. that he will sort of obey the constitution if he wins. me proud, today, secretary kerry. tell us he will obey the constitution and if we vote you down, by the way. do, you will go with the constitution. can you give me a better answer, secretary kerry? >> i don't know what the president's decision is.

proudht to make you because he still has the constitutional authority and he would still be in keeping with it. >> i disagree with you there. i don't believe he has the constitutional authority. madison was very explicit when he wrote the federalist papers. -- when he wrote "the federalist papers." it is explicit and runs throughout all of madison's writings. this power is a congressional power and is not an executive power. they did not say big war or small wart or boots on the ground. they said "declare war." if we do not say that the constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you are making a joke of us. you are making us into theater.

abides is real, you will by the verdict of congress. you are probably going to win. just go ahead and say it is real. let us have a real debate in this country, not a meaningless debate where in the end you go to war anyway. >> sir, i assure you there is nothing meaningless and there is >> onlyng real about -- if our vote makes a difference and is binding is it meaningful. president of the united states has a responsibility for telling you what his decision is when and if the moment comes. >> we have had a lot of discussion about whether or not we are going to make the world safer with his. somehow we are going to have fewer chemical weapons. i think it is an open question and conjecture at best.

we may be able to degrade assad mostapabilities, but reports say we are not even going to directly bomb the weapons because of what might happen to the surrounding population. my guess is he will still have the ability. most people say that he acted very illogically. why would he release weapons on his own people? he is already acting irrationally and illogically. now we are going to deter him and he is going to act in a rational matter. i think it is more likely that he does it again or doesn't do it. i don't think you can say for certain which is better. i don't think you can say that by attacking them he is not going to launch another chemical attack. will the region be more stable or less stable? we all stood a we want stability -- we all say we want stability in the middle east. think there are

equal arguments on both sides. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack, a gas attack or otherwise, or less likely? i think there is a valid argument to say they will the more likely to suffer an attack. will russia be more or less likely to get more heavily involved in this? i think there is an argument that they may become more likely to be involved. you run, more or less likely? there are all kinds of unknowns that i can't tell you absolutely the answer and neither can you. i think there is a reasonable argument that the world may be less stable because of this and that it may not deter any chemical weapons attacks. what i would ask is, how are we to know? i have not had one person come up to me and tell me they are for this war. .e get calls by the thousands

no one is calling in favor of this war. i was home all month and went to 40 cities. not one person came up to me. do we all agree it is a are in the sing? yes, we all agree. people are not excited about getting involved. they also don't think it is going to work and they are skeptical of what will occur with this. i would appreciate your response and try to reassure the rest of us that the vote is meaningful and valid and that you would t. >> will israel be more likely to suffer an attack or will they be safer or less safe? i can make it crystal clear to you that israel will be less safe unless the united states takes this action. hezbollah are two of the three biggest allies of assad.

iran and hezbollah are the two single biggest enemies of israel . so if iran and hezbollah are advantaged by the united states not curbing besides use of -- not curbings assad's use of chemical israel will be less secure. >> it is more likely that hezbollah will attack if we >> you willsponse. notice that israel has on several occasions seen fit to deal with threats to its security because of what is in syria. that once has assad responded to

that to date. i think there are things we session.lk about in a let me make it clear to you that -- you ask these questions will this or that be more or less likely to happen. if the united states of america doesn't do this, senator. is it more or less likely that assad will do it again? own --ink it is on your i think it is unknown. >> senator, it is not unknown. if the united states does not hold them accountable for this it is a guarantee that assad will do this again. i guarantee it. to theyou to go classified briefing and learn that. let me point out to you that with respect to this question of americans wanting to go to war, you have three people here who

have been to war. you have john mccain who has been to war. not one of us doesn't understand what going to war means. and neither of us wants to go to war. we don't believe we are going to war in the classic sense of taking american troops and america to war. the president is asking for the authority to do a limited action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. >> i think that by doing so you announce in advance that your goal is not winning. i think the last 50 years of secretaries of defense would say 100% of americans will say we don't want to go to war in syria. we don't want to go to war in syria, either. it is not what we are here to ask. the president is not asking you to go to war or eclair war. he is not asking to send one

american troop to war. he is simply saying we need to take action that can degrade the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly 100-year- old prohibition and will we be standard up -- and will we stand up to say we won't go along with that. that is not what the president is asking for, to put soldiers on the ground. >> host: this one is from donya it takes "the longer

them to make a decision the more time aside and his regime have ." kill their own people are c - megan says, any collateral damage is too much. the bombs are going to only hit civilians. says, "this is a united nations matter and if they do nothing then we divorce from those hypocrites." >> caller: i think the representatives should vote yes because i think that the people over there are suffering. myself, well us

in the united states if we were that way we would want help from someone also. i don't think that people quite understand that this is not a war. ,his is just to help the people to keep them from being hurt anymore, to be gassed, to be killed. so that their babies will not have shrapnel in their bodies. that is just too much. i can't understand it. all the men in my family have been in wars. my father was in world war ii, my older brothers were in vietnam. my youngest brother has been to iraq and afghanistan. they served their country to help. understand you are putting

them in harm's way, but on this they are not putting our soldiers in harms way. they are just trying to get assad -- trying to get iswhat the congress says that when they hit the red line, something has to be done. the united states are always -- is always the leader. >> host: i appreciate everyone sharing their views. it makes me a better representative.

that is from martha roby of alabama. good evening to share and in texas on the republicans line. i want my congress critters to vote no and i believe they are going to. we do not need to be in another .ar no thinking person can believe that if we strike syria there will not be repercussions. we have gone into all of these countries over there and not one of them has attack us. we are a nation of laws. if we do not follow our laws ourselves we do not have any in. anything.ot have paul told us this was going to happen.

it was prophetic what he said and it is coming to pass. nations and to spoiled the resources that we want. we have cap taters in their positions for a long time. they kill their people with guns and bombs and that is ok, but all of a sudden it is not ok to gas them and we have to get involved in their civil war? i don't understand what the rush is. we don't even have all the information in. no one else in the world is backing us on this. we will hear from clearwater florida next. joe leal is on the line -- jalil is on the line. country is more dangerous to the united states,

syria or iran? dangerous andore a greater threat for the national security of united states? host: will let you tend to the dog in the background. here is the president at the meeting in st. petersburg with president shinzo abe of japan. the -- nearly a week into the president's campaign to convince congress that air strikes against syria are necessary he has achieved little headway against a wall of skepticism on capitol hill. he has received virtually no support for an attack from constituents at home.

now syria treated -- if you're voting yes on military action in syria, might as well start clearing out your office. unprecedented level of public opposition. a piece today in "the -- ington post turcotte "the washington post." senator dianne feinstein spoke to reporters after her committee , the intelligence committee, which she chairs. here's what she had to say. the briefers made a very case -- a very compelling case about the strikes. i have had multiple briefings.

they get more and more inclusive as the intelligence community puts more together. i've been here for 20 years. i don't know a time, including iraq, when there has been more access for senators to gain information outside of what they read in a report. there is briefing after briefing after briefing. learned, iat i have have no doubt that the regime used nerve agents. 14re are at least 11 to prior incidents and this larger incident. i have no doubt that chemical weapons have been used. i think it is very important what he united nations team finds and i hope that will be just as soon as possible. additionally, today, i had asked the cia to prepare a dvd which instances ofecific

victims, andgely what we see means, what pinpointed eyes means, what the convulsions mean. would beof aspects included. we receive that this morning and it is horrendous. we are having that dvd multiplied and we will get it out to every member of the senate and possibly two members of the house so that they can, at their leisure, go through it, and also what each instance means in terms of making a determination that chemical agents are used. that is new. there will be additional briefings. there is one this afternoon. there was one scheduled at 5:30 after our meeting on monday.

as an information comes in, the cia has been very good about sharing it, so that is helpful, too. >> is that enough for you to decide to vote yes for strikes. >> yes, it is enough for me. you see, i think that the prohibition on chemical weapons is well-founded. you watch exactly what happens, you can see why that is so. they have tons and tons of this stuff. they have one of the largest if not the largest storage bays of chemical weapons in that part of the world. it, and they use it as we know they are able to use it in large amounts, the devastation is huge. i think 428 children dead on the ground and 1400 adults, that is a lot of people. we know that they have used it between 11 and 14 times before

but in smaller amounts. werek at that as they testing it anyway. it is a very serious situation and he's got to understand, assad, that there is a penalty for this. everybody,you say to whomever it is, there is no penalty if you avoid these treaties and if you go ahead and use this terrible nerve agent. many of her colleagues say they are undecided. are you trying to get them to agree on the serial resolution? >> what i am trying to do is see that they have all the information that they need. that is a job in itself. we will keep doing that. hopefully they will go to other briefings. they can certainly be undecided

there is aote, but moment of truth in all of this. >> senator, do you intend to try to rally support of people who are still undecided or for the vote? >> i will be as helpful as i can to members. >> what was the deciding factor to shape your opinion? >> i'll tell you what the deciding factor for me was. i spent a lot of time on the intelligence in the iraq war and i voted yes. then i saw the problems with it. what i have tried to do is say are those same problems evident this time? they are not. i think the intelligence is different. it is much better because it is conclusive on the fact that these weapons were used. i think is aof it judgment call. once the administration made

this call, though, i think there is a real need for us to back it up or america becomes a paper tiger. usit says to iran let proceed and develop a bomb, a warhead, because they are not going to do anything when push comes to shove. and to north korea, which i view as one of the most unstable regimes on earth, it says to them we have thousands of 10 -- wers in south korea have thousands of american soldiers in south korea. >> are you going to do more to help change the mind of skeptical lawmakers? >> i am not critical of the president. i think everyone is doing what they can do including the president. they are trying to talk to get more the g 20 and help. i think john kerry has stepped up amazingly and made very

and houre appeals after hour of testimony. others have as well. there is no lack of decision- makers getting the information. the information is coming through if you attend the briefings and do the readings. >> senator, what is your constituency in california saying to you and how does that weigh on you? >> it weighs on me because i am very constituent oriented and everyday i get a report on what the calls are, where the calls are coming from, what the nature of the argument is. there is no question what is coming in is overwhelmingly negative. there is no question about that. what you see, then they don't know what i know. they haven't heard what i have heard. i like to believe, though, after 20 years, that i have some skill in separating the wheat from the

chaff in this thing. i know where we were when iraq was considered and i know where we are with this. i don't want to see nations using chemical weapons with abandon. we are notto me is the world's keeper and i agree with that to an extent, but the treaties were products of decision-making bodies like ours. what these weapons do, and you'll see from the videos, now that they're put together. i think they took 170 videos and slice them down to 13 which have very important points in them. if you leave it unanswered, you send a message by that lack of answer. we can't do that. you can look at the children and the adults and look at the

om -- it's hard to believe this is a civilized world. there is no international backing, do you still support the congress and president moving forward with military options? >> the president has made the statement, as president bush has said, we must support him. i believe that. this is not an all out unlimited engagement rate it has specific limits. iread the house resolution -- read the resolution they came out of foreign relations and it is a very specific resolution. limited.e and scope it says no boots on the ground. think the effectiveness is really up to the military, how they put this together to deter this chemical

weapons effort that is going on and has gone on for some time now in serious. >> dianne feinstein speaking today. this is c-span town hall your calls and comments. calls in a moment. first some tweets. saysis one from who briefing is code word for rain wash. -- brainwash.

the republican line, texas. welcome. go ahead. >> i want my senator to vote no. there is no reason to go over there and spend more money somewhere else when they needed to take care of our own people. thank you. >> thank you for your call. is in richmond, virginia. others line. >> can you hear me? >> are you on a speaker phone? i would like to vote no. you can see the state of our economy. our intelligence?

what has been going on for the last 10 or 15 years with our country. it would hurt america totally. if our senators or congressmen and those officials would take ofe to look into the eyes where we are getting our intelligence from, can we trust what is going on? we have to think about the economy. thank you. >> joshua from richmond, virginia. the house and senate will be returning tomorrow. not likely to see any debate on the floor of the house or the senate. articlel is posting an this evening to spotlight some members to keep an eye on the 20 house members to watch on syria. they are spotlighting kevin

mccarthy of california. he is the number three republican in the house and he has yet to decide if he will join eric cantor and john boehner. some of the others include paul price.om here is john from thomson, it here is john from thomson, georgia. to sit back and think about what is really happening. if you do not have any boots on the ground and you do not -- and you have chemical weapons, how do you get the weapons out of the hands of our enemy? i understand this could be a front to show the world that we are the superpower, we should think about what we are doing.

innocent people are going to be killed. it will be the start of world war iii, and who wants that? helet's hear from richard, is in dayton, ohio. >> i will be asking my senators and congressmen to vote yes. are a violation of international law. i do not see how a civilized people can sit back and allow something like this to happen. it is almost like letting hitler take the jews to the gas chambers and not saying a word about it. i think we need to be -- quit being so cynical and trust our intelligence. -- we are talking about going in there after the chemical weapons. the u.s. does not have to put boots on the ground. there are other countries, turkey, france, other countries they can go in and remove the

chemical weapons. when it comes to financing, that is another ridiculous issue. you have saudi arabia and the uae that will be able to finance this without any problem. what we really need to think about, the chemical weapons are a violation, we need to look two years down the road when iran is capable of shooting rockets over to the united states. if they have this chemical weapons, it will be in our own backyard. we really need to, as a civilized people, we need to go in and take action. are tweeting about their positions on this -- members are tweeting about their positions on this. fitzpatrick,mike

his district is just outside of philadelphia. also, an article this evening and national journal with a "the weekend pushes plan on syrian resolution" three days of arm twisting and long- distance lobbying lie ahead for lawmakers in the obama administration is neither the house nor the senate appeared to have enough votes to pass a resolution authorizing military action. here is leonard in georgia. democrats line. >> voting yes. america, we need to stand strong. we need to back our president.

i may not agree with everything this man has done, but we need to stand strong. this man is testing chemical weapons on his own people. our homeland, we need to be prepared. i have two children come a able and old enough to go to war. i do not want that for my kids. if we become weak and allow other countries to take advantage of us and other people. >> thank you for your call. we will show you a complete discussion held in washington this week on syria. some comments from elizabeth who is with the institute for the study of war and has spent some time in syria learning about the opposition groups in that country. here is some of what she had to say. i think it is important to keep in mind that two questions

i'm hearing frequently that seem to be on people's minds, what is going to be the reaction by the regime and the opposition? who is the opposition? , weyears into a conflict are still asking the question. there seems to be a metanarrative that has developed that is categorically -- the radical movement that has been so radicalized. my comments are going to address what is the likely reaction by the regime in the opposition and tried to take a more nuanced look at some of the various opposition forces and how dynamics have changed over the course of the two years. starting with the reaction by the regime, a lot of this will

go back to the exact objectives we are trying to achieve. if this is meant to be a punitive measure, in order to send a message through the regime, you're likely to see the inverse of that. you could see an empowered assad to say the americans attacked us and we are still here and we survived and spend the narrative to a position of power. it could have a debilitating psychological impact on the opposition and the civilian population. i think there, does need to be some considerable thought given to the psychological impacts that an attack will have and what the regime what is likely to do with that attack. we have been tracking very closely the repositioning of

assets and the hopes of the fraying any cost of u.s. action, there will be a lot of -- there is a strong possibility that any attack, if not carefully chosen militarye the assad capability, there could be a chance for a retaliation or escalation. i think there is a real fear of isalation as if the strike punitive. you could potentially see some lashing out, more chemical weapons attacks against regional , a large u.s. embassy in iraq. there will be potential for retaliation. at theneed to look grading the military capabilities to reduce the

potential for any possible escalation or retaliation effects. side, moving aon little bit away from the mostlyion, the civilians believe there needs to be a response to chemical weapons. they are very disappointed the syrian government has been allowed to use chemical weapons and their has been no international response to that breach. that is a critical point because you are beginning to see some radicalization as a result of this feeling of abandonment that chemical weapons are being used and no one is there to stop it or help. there were a lot of expectations , some of the groups planned

operations to reallocate troops. to that degree, they have been a little bit -- there is a lot of confusion about the potential of a u.s. strike, what that impact would have and how the opposition should respond to it. i'd explain some of the comments coming from the opposition that is not always in agreement with each other. there is a real sense of confusion given the promises that were made, given the expectations they had. going back to this idea that the opposition is very much where he of the limited -- wary of the limited punitive strike, you seek managers saying -- you seek managers saying, if you are just going to give them a slap on the wrist, please do not do it. in needs to be something preventing them from the atrocities and killings of innocents. degree, it is focused on

a more comprehensive strategy. opinion, andal this is not based on the opposition's thoughts, even a punitive strike at this point could have an important psychological impact on the civilian population. the radicalization that i have ,een seeing develop over time but was stopped for some time because of positive developments is now starting up again as chemical weapons are being used and there is no response. my own personal opinion is that if there is nothing else, and i do not agree with a limited strike, if there is nothing else, the psychological impact of sending a message is very important. quickly through the opposition, who are the opposition, what do they represent?

syria are veryn fluid. when you are talking about it with the opposition as and when you are talking about who is in power, you really have to look at it based on transactional legitimacy and the very specific context. i think there is a very real threat coming from the islamic state of iraq and some of the more al qaeda aligned groups moving into the north. this has forced the more moderate opposition to come together in ways they have not before. they are feeling the threat from the regime forces and also from this new extremist threat. on my most recent trip in early moret, i witnessed much cohesive organization, much more cohesive alliance than i have ever seen in the past to the

degree where they are actively planning joint operations, there is active communication, attempts to come to agreement on a joint strategy and are .ogether working on plans it is huge because you do see some levels of organization. we are now beginning to see the foundations of that national strategy come together. response to this growing threat moving in from the more extremist groups. part of this is -- speaks to the program underway. i cannot emphasize enough the impact that support coming from u.s. allies has had on creating and empowering a moderate opposition force. we're beginning to see through the well-known funded cia facility programs that are moving in through the south, we

have seen what funding and resource support can do for creating and empowering a moderate opposition. to the degree that they are much more effective and are able to marginalize forces and come together in coherent in ways they haven't been able to do in. in the past, one of the reasons why we have seen such a huge -- the civilian population has not been welcoming all receptive to these groups. they have been able to give a more dominant position than they would have otherwise. once you see them able to compete at that same level in terms of resources, we have seen positive impact on the ground as a result of that. >> that discussion in our coverage this week, he brings

available in arbiter he -- the new york times today with the lead piece about one group in particular, the headline is "syrian rebels." prisoners were captured by syrian soldiers. they kept their faces pressed the dirt as rebel commanders recited a revolutionary voice. the commander fired a bullet to the back of the first prisoner's head. this scene smuggled out of syria offers a dark insight into

rebels who have adopted tactics of the regin they are trying to overthrow. taking your comments and calls about how you want your representatives to vote in the upcoming debate on the syrian resolution. thomasville, georgia. caller: hello. at this point, i do not know if i want to say yes or no. there is a lot of information out there. i don't want the congress to take it lightly. it seems they want to make a strategic strike and they will be done. i don't want to assume it will be that easy. if we retaliate, if the

government retaliates or another country there, what do we do in response? host: who is your representative? caller: scott, i think it's his name. we just had a new one takeover. host: when you talk to your friends and neighbors about this, what is your sense of how your neighborhood is feeling on this? caller: there is a lot of people who do not want to do it. i have a son who was over there. my heart is to say no. i realize the syrians need help. i don't want to think we can attack a few places and we are

done. i don't want us to think there is no retaliation. i like the things that elizabeth was saying. it is a much bigger picture than a lot of people want to talk about. lex thank you for your call. host: the challenge ahead for the president, obama needs a game changer to win the vote in the house. his request for approval of a military strike is based in failure and could need a significant game changer to pass the house. the authorization request may pass the senate. in south carolina, republican line. caller: let me qualify. i think the use of chemical

weapons is absolutely abysmal. especially human insecticide. we know what happens to insects only spray them. it kills them. syria, the united states has an interest with syria, and little strategic interest with the exception of israel. this is probably the most dangerous thing obama has embarked on. there is about 1000 for ways this can go terribly wrong. in situations like this, can lead to things like world war iii. let's say that we attack them. assad decides he will hit our proxy, israel. israel decides to go nuclear and syria. the russians say you can't do

that because we will attack you. all of a sudden we have world war iii, thousands of nuclear weapons on both sides. this thing can go terribly wrong very quickly. for that reason, i do not want to see us get in. the use of the chemical weapons is testable. host: ok, are democrats on. caller: number one, it has not been established. there is no proof that assad used chemical weapons on their people. i have heard dianne feinstein and people talk about it is obvious the chemicals were used. there is not been any definitive proof showed to anyone except for these elites they keep

telling us we need to act on it. that is number one. what we're looking at is libya. all the american people have to do is look at what happened to libya couple of years ago. it was the same thing. we used a despaired band of mercenaries mixed in with dissidents from libya. they fought against qaddafi's forces. they created a no-fly zone. nato took him out. if you go online and look at a video that a former four-star general clark went on record multiple times and said he was told by top brass in the pentagon that the u.s. was going to take out seven countries and five years. this is all about israel. this is all about taking out their enemies.

look at the people that are behind this. do your own homework. look at different media from around the world. i'll just look at the mainstream media in the united states. look at other international media that is available on the internet and think for yourselves. your country has been hijacked. host: we've been looking at tweets for members of congress today as they get ready to return tomorrow. a week ago, john mccain was skeptical but the president's decision over the weekend to seek approval from congress. after a white house meeting early this week on sunday, both senators graham and mccain came out in favor of support to resolution.

he is at a town hall this evening. another spirited town hall in syria. lots of participation and great t-shirts. that is a photo of senator mccain with his constituents. here is to coda in miami. caller: thank you for having me on. what i have to say is i've listened to john kerry, saying all of this is going to be limited. as we all know, it is not going to be limited strikes. we go over there and just strike

a few times, and then turn our ships around and we're done? no. there is going to be -- i agree with rand paul very much so. i'm going to vote no on this. i think we need to stay out of it. host: more of your calls and comments coming up on how your members should vote on the resolution. had a couple of callers mentioning libya. of course, the overthrow there over the last year. the issue was brought up in conversations in the house. here is jeff duncan talking with secretary kerry. >> i would say to congress marino, with respect to the body bags, we had a 28 day campaign, maybe 30 day campaign echoes of oh -- in kosovo. none of which is contemplated here. none of which -- and there were

zero casualties. >> we should go to south carolina at this time. >> thank you. i cannot discuss the possibility of u.s. involvement in syria without also talking about benghazi. the ministration has a serious credibility issue with the american people. you not answer questions about the terrorists account -- terrorist attack in benghazi. bottom line is, there is a need for accountability and trust from the administration. to paraphrase, i'm not upset of you not telling the truth. from now on, i can't believe you. the administration has a credibility issue. secretary kerry and hegel, then gaze is germane to the discussions because the world

was and is watching for a response. after a year of not bringing anyone to justice in benghazi, they are watching a response. your predecessor asked, what difference does it make now? this is the difference. these issues: to question the accountability of this ministration. its commitment to the judgment it uses when making these determinations. the american people deserve answers before removal were talking about military involvement in syria. section four of your testimony says this is about accountability. the mecca people deserve -- the american people deserve questions about benghazi before he moved forward. this is a picture. this was given to me by his father, charles would. the family deserves answers. he was killed in benghazi. america deserves answers before we send another man or woman

into harms way, especially in another country's civil war is no clear indication that there is an imminent threat to united states. i don't question chemical weapons were used. i've looked at the classified briefings. where the other signatory conventions against this regime. i have spoken to hundreds of constituents. this represents about 300 him as my office is gone. not one in my district that have contacted my office they go to serious and fight this regime. they say no. do not going to syria. i spoke to eighth graders about it. they get it. we shouldn't be drug into

someone else's civil war. i can only envision an escalation of the current conflict buried the scene administration that was so quick to involve the u.s. and syria was reluctant to use the same resources at its disposal to attempt a rescue of brave americans that fought for their lives in benghazi. you have never been one that is advocated for anything other than caution when involving u.s. forces in past conflicts. the same is true of the president and the vice president. has of any efforts directly rhythmically to provide weapons to the syrian rebels? >> have them efforts to -- >> put hands in the weapons -- put weapons in the hands of

syrian rebels? >> let me begin by challenging your position that i have never done anything but abdicate -- advocate caution because i volunteered to fight for my country. that was in a cautious thing to do when i did it. i am going to finish, congressman. i'm going to finish. when i was in the senate, i supported military action in any number of occasions. including, grenada, panama. i'm not going to sit here and be told by you that i do not have a sense of what the judgment is with respect to this. we are talking people being killed by gas. he wanted talk about benghazi and fast and furious.

>> absolutely i want to talk about benghazi. four americans lost their lives. i have sympathy for the people in syria. we should ask congress -- we should act cautiously. >> we writing so cautiously the president united states was not acting because he wanted to have sufficient evidence and build a case properly. >> it has been 15 days. >> point of privilege here. i think this is important. i think it is important whether or not we are going into syria in a way that the congressman describes, which most people in america don't want us to do. we do not want to do that. that is why the president has said no boots on the ground. this is not about getting into syria. this is about enforcing the principal that people should be allowed to gas their citizens with impunity.

if we do not vote to do this, assad will interpret he is free to do this any day he wants to. that is what this is about. not getting involved in serious syria's civil war. the real issue here is whether or not the congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been broken twice until assad. hitler and saddam hussein. if we give license to continue that, shame on us. >> secretary kerry before the house foreign affairs committee. taking your, somehow you will remember -- how your member of congress to vote on the syrian revolution. this one from kelly, who says i'm sure i've never seen a, stream on c-span with so many opinions in the same side of the scale. >> let's make this simple. no u.s. intervention.

james says they have made up their wines. our government is going to attack the matter what the overall majority of the citizenry thing. the first call up, and hawaii. caller: i'm going to vote no. this administration has been everything but transparent. the american people are fed up with this administration. they are shy of being a dictator, if you will. we have no business in syria. we have no interest in syria. i feel sorry for the people for the people who got gassed. but, we have no interest being in syria at this point. host: from our public in line. caller: i'm going to vote no. i hope that -- in illinois, we will have a lot of yes votes

coming out of here. i hope some of them take the time to look this over. they are playing on our emotions. 400 children were killed. we kill children every day in this country. 3000 today with abortions. it is a horrible way to go, just the same as gassing. i'm sorry those children have to die. this happens. why are we just now getting pressured into taking action? march was six months back. if this was such a rush to correct this, we should have done this several months ago. what we are planning on doing a striking a sovereign nation with tomahawk missiles. that is inactive for -- that is

an act of war. you're going to commit an act of war. russia and china already have warships heading towards the locales where our ships are. i am very uncommon but with our ships being in that same area. it would be easy to wipe that what is left of our navy. the people that we're proposing we are going to back are the same people who are murdering anybody who doesn't agree with them. those were the rebels during the shooting. host: the video from the new york times piece? caller: i'm not sure it was clear. those were the rebels we're going to back. the rex a cute in the young man. -- they were executing the young men. host: the most recent attack, the focus of the resolutions of the house and senate, was august

21. caller: i have already talked to my representative. i told him no nationally and -- very passionately. the american people need to pay attention. do we have any idea how many times our government --no one talks about the civilians we have killed in turkey and somalia, in afghanistan and iraq. host: who is your congressman? caller: randy homan. our government has killed children in our name. we have used chemical weapons in vietnam. we used chemical weapons in iraq.

depleted uranium in bullets. we have the gall to say that possibly assad may have used gas to kill 1400 people. let's not forget about the american people in waco that were killed by our government. host: one republican that is supporting the resolution is adam kinzinger. here is his conversation with secretary kerry. >> thank you. we have had a couple of long weeks. i'm about to support this. i want to say the very beginning, my disapproval of the president's policies in the middle east. i believe that part of the reason we are having difficulty rallying an international coalition is they do not see the united states having lead on this until recently. as a veteran of the military, as a current serving military pilot

in the air national guard, i am war weary. i want to remind americans of all on -- of what one of my favorite president said. war begins when the price of aggression is cheap. that is the situation we find ourselves in. listening to my colleagues, it has been amazing to me that we are seeming to paralyze ourselves and inaction. it makes me wonder, god help us, if we became a country that cannot do the right thing because i paralyze ourselves in action. what i have here attention everyone needs to see. a picture of syrian children, many of which the secretary said died in this chemical gas

attack. you can ensure that maybe even the kids in this picture or other kids will die from the same attack. i want to read you the effect. the mild effects, drooling and excessive sweating, chest tightness, diarrhea, vomiting, confusion, drowsiness, weakness, headache, low or high blood pressure. exposes to large doses like we saw in syria, loss of consciousness, convulsions, paralysis, respiratory failure, a polite way of saying we suffocate to death while you are aware that you are suffocating to death. what we are talking about is a discussion of what international community in the united states america in the goodness of our heart has determined is the right thing.

can we ban all artillery shells question mark we can't. can be more -- can we ban all war we can't. i last you to comment on this. from 2001, we maintained no-fly zones over iraq because of our disdain for chemical weapons. most people would have agreed that what we did was the right thing to do. saddam hussein gassed his own residence. this is not the first time america has put on a red line on chemical weapons. i've heard people say this is the president's red line. it is not the right one of the nights is america. -- the red light of the united states of america. he said his one regret was inaction in rwanda. i wonder in 2010, in 50 years, if we do nothing about the gassing of thousands of people in syria. i have heard people say, has bothered me, they say that if we

go in and we strike assad and make him pay for the use of chemical weapons, more than any benefit to gains, we are acting as al qaeda's air force. i believe that is a cheap line. not a serious discussion of what is going on. mr. secretary kerry, what is your thought on the common -- the comment about qaeda's air force in dealing with the opposition and punishing an evil man with using evil weapons? >> your comments have been very eloquent. i think, very important to this discussion. i'm confident i join the general in thanking you for your service and the willingness to serve in the guard and as a pilot. the intent of the president could not be more clear. if congress would pass this, we

can carry out this action, the impact will be not to help all qaeda. it will not help al qaeda. it will further expose al qaeda. it will hold a dictator accountable to this critical standard. you just reiterated, and i said in my opening testimony, this is not just about folks in syria. american troops benefit from this standard being upheld. through all of our wars since 1925, we have managed to see it felt against -- we have managed to see it upheld. the fact is, the absence of our

willingness to uphold this standard will do several things that are directly against our interest. completely undermine america's validity, america's word in the region and elsewhere. it will embolden north korea and iran with respect to activities that will directly threaten the united states. it will importantly increase the number of terrorists we are already concerned about because it will force people who want to take on assad to go to the least common denominator of efficiency and expediency, nobody armed -- and that will be the arm for people to get the job done. i would urge everybody to listen

carefully to congressman kessinger. in the absence of doing this, it will be a grant of impunity for the use of these weapons. >> all of this week's hearings at c-span.org. that will do it for the town hall on syria. we appreciate you participating in the conversation. the house and senate gaveling and for brief sessions tomorrow. we showed you that tweet earlier from john mccain at his town hall. here is the associated press reporting on that. you can see the road test signs in the reporting. we will continue the with "washington journal" tomorrow morning at eastern. we will hear from retired lieutenant general david barno and discussed united nations and

nato response in syria with sangwon yoon examining new figures on what it means to be a household in the u.s. including the decline in emily's. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span radio. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in a few minutes, and program on thel syrian civil war. after that, another view of u.s. military strikes on syria held by the brookings institution. a couple of live events tomorrow here on c-span beginning with the brookings institution discussion on china's economy at 10:00 a.m. eastern.

at 2:00 p.m., at the center for american progress for samantha power's comments on syria. they form hosted by the atlantic council on the syrian civil war and the u.s. military strikes. elizabethinclude o'bagy from the institute of civil war who was recently in syria. this is an hour and a half. >> ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. my name is frederic hof and on behalf of fred kemp, the president of the atlantic council and michelle done, the

director of the center for the middle east, i would like to welcome you all to today's program. this is a joint production of the hariri center and the atlantic council. over the past two weeks, we have witnessed a truly extraordinary chain of events that began on the 21st of august with a chemical attack in a suburb of damascus. in the fullness of time, i think we will probably know for sure what motivated the assad regime to take this step and what it was actually thinking. in terms of trying to get away with it. what is objectively clear at this point is that this was a criminal attack on defenseless

civilians. it was a clear violation of international prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons. and it was a direct challenge to the credibility of president obama and the united states. particularly, in the wake of warnings about red lines and game changers. one striking feature of this chain of events -- sorry, has been the manner in which the obama administration has reacted to the key event itself.

for well over a week, the burden of articulating outrage and making the case for a powerful response fell mainly to secretary of state john kerry. when the president and the secretary of defense chuck hagel spoke, their combined effect at times was to blur somewhat the clarity of secretary kerry's message. all of this changed last weekend when president obama announced he had come to a decision on the use of force, and would seek from congress and authorizing resolution, "to use the armed forces of the united states as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in syria." in order to one, to prevent or deter the use and proliferation

within, to or from syria of any weapons of mass destruction. including chemical or biological weapons or components or materials used in such weapons. two, to protect the united states and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons. congress is now actively engaged in hearing from the administration about the national security objectives and strategy in which likely cruise missile attacks on syrian targets will be embedded. this is of critical importance. much of the syria related work in 2013 has centered on the need for an objectives-based u.s. strategy towards syria. clearly, president obama believes contrary to the assad regime and its orders that there

is no military solution to the syrian crisis. obviously, he would like to see a diplomatic solution consistent with what was agreed to by p-5 in geneva in 2012. although it is obvious that the president wants military strikes to bring about the deterrence and prevention results mentioned, clearly there must be a syria related national security set of objectives that transcends the response to the horrible events of august 21. prior to that date, the assad regime had already killed tens of thousands of syrians using mostly conventional munitions in

a campaign of mass terror, one that has produced over 2 million refugees and nearly 5 million internally displaced persons. a campaign having enormously negative affect on american allies and friends in the region. prior to that date, the assad regime had already established itself as a palpable threat to the peace in the region. prior to that date, the united states needed an objectives- based strategy for syria. the need for one now as military action is contemplated is manifest. our focus today, however, is on

what is directly in front of us. the prospect of u.s. military strikes in syria and congress's debate over whether or not to authorize the president to move forward. we have three excellent speakers who will tackle this subject from three different perspectives. first, barry pavel is an atlantic council vice president and director of the center on international security. for nearly 18 years, he served as a senior official in the office of the undersecretary of defense policy and the department of defense, after which he served on the white house staff as a special

assistant to the president, working for both president george w. bush and barack obama. dr. elizabeth o'bagy is a research analyst at the institute of the study of war where she studies syrian politics and security. she is also involved in humanitarian work as the political director of the syrian emergency task force. her major reports on the syrian opposition include, the free syrian army, jihad and syria, and syria's political opposition. she is widely acknowledged as an expert on the syrian armed opposition and has done extensive fieldwork. as the u.s. president and the public agonizing over what is to

be done and its impact of united states, elizabeth will bring what you needed focus on the alternatives that exist. finally, faysal itani is a fellow with the rafik hariri center. he is a relatively new and very welcome addition to the center. faysal is a middle east analyst whose focus is transition in the arab world with an emphasis -- before working on the council, he worked as a risk analysis analyst advising international organizations on political,

economic and security affairs in the region. faisal will help us shape the discussion of potential regional implications of whatever it is the united states is about to do in syria. i will ask each of the speakers to frame the key issues as they see them and to do so within about eight minutes each. we will then turn to questions. which, given the size of the audience, will need to be tightly focused. i will attempt to do a brief wrapup at the end and we will make every effort to adjourn promptly at 2:00 p.m. i would ask you to switch off cell phones, and with that i will turn to barry. >> thanks very much, fred. thanks, everybody for coming. i am going to be really brief, partly in the interest of time to hear from you.

partly because of lot of what i have said has already been in print. i will be brief and a little provocative and then we can discuss it. i always start with conversations about the u.s. role in the conflict in terms of its military role, what are the mission objectives? i will outline four or five. i did this before some of the leaks came out that described it. it is sort of a ladder. you can see increasing levels of ambition, the u.s. is increasingly involved for good or for ill and that depends on your opinion. the first objective would be to deter further chemical weapons use and we will talk about the military manifestations of these mission objectives. the second is to more

comprehensively takeout assad's air force and ground force units, many of which are the delivery vehicles for chemical weapons. they also serve other regime aims. third would be to increase the quantity and quality of weapons going to the rebel groups. this gets a more involved on the ground. this gets us more obviously picking sides on a political military bases. fourth would be the establishment and enforcement of a no-fly zone so that we take away assad's use of air power completely. this is a more sustained operation and would involve much more of an investment in terms of our military ownership of aspects of the conflict. fifth, and we heard this from general jones on piers morgan last thursday, another objective would be the establishment of

safe areas in some portion of syria on the ground that would have to be protected and managed by some forces on the ground, because proxies or direct forces from a coalition. i think about that ladder and for me that drives the rest of our applications as a military role in it. at this point, i emphasize that, it looks like the operation is definitely focused on objective one which is deterring further use of chemical weapons by the assad regime. i say there is a little bit of two and three in there also. i would love to hear from our panelists as well. i think there will be some targets of the eventual military campaign that would address air force units, air force bases, ground force units, ground force bases, associated military command and control and communications facilities, etc. we heard from senator mccain after he met with president

obama outside of the west wing, that there is also a plan to increase the quantity and quality of the weapons that the united states will be providing to vetted rebel groups. the more ambitious that one goes up this ladder, there are more implications of military conflict. we will hear some of that from faysal. increased danger of u.s. entanglement. it increases the probability of syria in retaliation and potentially iranian military involvement. if assad thinks we are only going after objective one, i think most of the interests he would be thinking about would be, i will treat this like a hurricane. i will hunker down in my bunker. when the storm is over, i will do everything again. probably with a little more

freedom. if it is more, i am going to hurt core assets that are valuable to assad and the military, then you start making the price too high for them. that is the framework i use to thing about this. there is broader consideration beyond syria as well. i wouldn't under emphasize these. the syrian part is really important. i think -- i am a former math major so i did the math. over 4000 people, has been roughly the average of being killed. when you think about the two and a half week delay between when we thought the operation was

going to strike and the earliest time congress can vote the next week that is a shame. we are talking 2500 people killed while we go through this process that we are going through. in terms of broader considerations, there is a classical theory of deterrence that is relevant here. there are two elements of deterrence that are relevant. deterrence is threatening some sort of cost or punishment on an adversary that crosses the line. there are two aspects of that. it should be swift and very effective. second, the exact nature of that punishment should be uncertain in the eyes of the adversary. thomas shelley called it a threat that leaves something to chance. you don't want the adversary to know exactly what you're going to do, because he can play out more precisely and get a better

estimate of his cost, of his retaliation, etc. you want them to know that something really big, really harmful and really swift is coming their way and you don't want them to know exactly what it is going to be. with those graduate school 101 deterrence tenets, i would say the obama administration has succeeded in violating both of them fully and frontally with the leaks that were let out about the timing, expected timing of the operation, the objectives, the numbers of targets, the types of targets. more detail than i had when i was doing planning in the pentagon. assad as a result now has a wonderful amount of time to prepare fully for what he thinks is coming and what we think is coming. as i tweeted a few minutes after the president's announcement, i said certainly assad will be

moving in with her units into civilian neighborhoods. that is what i would do. and moving civilians into military areas. i think we have seen some reporting of that since then. i think the ideal effect -- i think about this -- what do you want assad to take away from this operation when it is done? you want him hunkering down in his bunker, bombs all over the place for a sustained terrifying period of time. the reason you want that is so it will never think about doing it again. you want him coming away not even thinking about the possibility of resorting to weapons of mass destruction again. at this point, from what we understand, he probably knows, i have nothing to fear. i am just going to hunker down

and when this is over, i am going to come back out. my view is, let's keep the purpose of this operation as a political military purpose. just because general dempsey told the president we can strike anytime, time does matter. for these reasons, i have dubbed this operation slow motion pinprick. the attributes of that are the opposite of what i would say the united states should be doing. a broader point that is really important to me and i think to you the united dates, u.s. allies have been watching this stream of the vents very closely as have some partners. these are allies that have a legal defense treaty commitment with the united states and who

have relied on the united states in some cases for 60 years to come to their defense when they feel threatened. in many cases, from wmd armed adversaries like iran, north korea or threatening allies like south korea, japan, and our gulf allies. they are already scared about u.s. defense budgets, about sequestration, about the reduced capacity of the military to bring assets to bear in times when they need them the most. they are also scared of the resolve and will of the american people and of the president to come to their defense in such contingencies.

this administration in many cases has focused its priorities on rebuilding the united states economy, dealing with domestic issues. i think it would be wonderful if the world would wait for us to get our own domestic house in order or would go along with our pivot to asia in terms of defense policy. obviously, that is not the case. i think it is really important for global purposes, for the purposes of stability in key regions like the asian pacific and the persian gulf, that the u.s. respond to this violation of a declared u.s. threshold be met in the most effective way possible. i am confident that president obama has his eye on iran as he

goes through the policies he is going through. that is something we should keep a very clear. i know he considers it one of the foremost challenges in his and term in terms of security threats to the united states. one big caveat on everything i have said, we are going on reporting. we haven't seen the operation play out yet. it hasn't happened. it could be an operation that meets the requirements that i have just talked about and so, would i love to be happy when operation whatever it is called is going to come out and do exactly what i think most observers who have very high stakes in the u.s. response would be looking for. i am hopeful that is the case. i will end my remarks there.

>> barry, thank you very much. i hope that the question period will present an opportunity for you to say what you really think. [laughter] >> thank you all for having me here. i think it is really important to ask two questions that are on people's minds as they make this decision. the first is, what is going to be the reaction from the regime and the opposition? the other, who is the opposition? two years into a conflict, we are still asking this question. there seems to be a meta- narrative that has developed into a radical movement that is so radicalized, they are all in cahoots with al qaeda. to the point that my comments

are going to address the likely reactions by the regime and the opposition and try to take a more nuanced look at various opposition forces and how dynamics have changed over the course of two years to the point we are at right now. first, starting with the reaction by the regime. i think a lot of this will go back to the exact objectives we are trying to achieve with a strike. if this is meant to be a punitive measure that strikes at a few token symbols in order to send a message, i think you are likely to see the inverse affect. you could see an empowered assad who can come out and say, the americas attacked us, and we are still here. we survived and in a sense, spin the narrative to a positive. to that degree, i think there

does need to be some considerable thought given to the psychological impact that any attack will have and what the regime is likely to do with that attack. we have been tracking very closely the repositioning of assets with hopes of the fraying the cost of any u.s. action. there is going to be a lot of -- there is a strong possibility that any attack if not carefully chosen to significantly degrade the assad military capabilities, given the time they have had at this point, there could be the chance for retaliation or escalation. i think there is a real fear of escalation if the strike is punitive or limited. you could potentially see some lashing out, more chemical weapon attacks, other possible

retaliation against regional allies, a very large embassy in iraq. there is potential for retaliation. that is why we are considering the possible reaction by the regime. you need to look at the grading the military capability to reduce the potential for any possible escalation or retaliation affect. on the opposition side, moving away -- the civilians i have talked to, most people believe there needs to be a response to chemical weapons. they are very disappointed that the syrian government has been allowed to use chemical weapons

and there has been no international response to that breach. i think that is a really critical point. from the opposition standpoint, there are a lot of expectations. many that i have talked to plan operations -- to that degree, it has been a little that upset and confusion about the potential of a u.s. strike and have the opposition should respond. i think that explains a lot of the comments coming from the opposition that aren't always in agreement with each other because there is a very real sense of confusion given the expectations they had.

also, going back to this idea that the opposition is weary of a punitive strike to the degree that you see commanders coming out and openly saying, if you're just going to give him a slap on the wrist, please don't delay. instead, it needs to be something that degrades military capability, preventing the atrocity and actually helping to empower the opposition. to that degree, it is this focus on a more comprehensive strategy because of the likely consequences that a smaller attack would have. my own personal opinion is that even a punitive strike at this point could have an important psychological impact on the civilian population. again, the radicalization that i have seen develop over time was actually stopped for some time because of positive developments in syria. it is now starting again as chemical weapons are being used and there is no response. my own personal opinion is that if there is nothing else, and i

do not agree with a limited strike, but if there is nothing else, psychological impact of sending a message is very important. moving quickly through the opposition, who are the opposition is to mark what do they represent? let me say this. circumstances are very fluid. i have traveled there frequently and things change frequently. when you're talking about the opposition, who is in power, you really have to look at it based on transactional legitimacy. frankly, i think there is a very real threat coming from the islamic state of iraq. this is a more modern opposition coming together in ways they haven't before. they are feeling the threat from this new extreme threat to the degree that on my most recent rep in early august, i witnessed much more cohesive organization much more cohesive alliance and

i have seen in the past. they are actively planning joint operations. there is active communication, attempts to come to agreement on a joint strategy. they are together working on plans across provinces. you do see some levels of organization at provincial levels, but nothing at the national level. we are now beginning to see the foundations of that national strategy come together. it is a direct responsed to this growing threat. part of this also speaks -- i

cannot emphasize enough the impact that support coming from u.s. allies had on creating and empowering a modern opposition force. we are beginning to see through the well-known saudi funded and cia facilitated programs, we have seen what funding can do for creating and empowering a moderate opposition to the degree where they are not only much more effective, but they are able to marginalize extremist forces. they are finally at a level where they can compete in terms of that transactional legitimacy with more extremist groups. in the past, one of the reasons you have seen such a huge dominance is resources. the civilian population has not been welcoming to the extremist groups.

they have access to funding and they leverage that to give them a more dominant position than they would have otherwise. once you begin to see the more moderate forces at that same level in terms of resources, we have already seen a positive impact on the ground. very briefly, i don't like using terms -- all these religious terms. i don't think that the way people identify religiously is indicative of our own understanding of what these terms mean. when i am talking about moderate forces, i am talking about people who have over the course of two years not only talked about but actually demonstrated a respect for minority rights,

respect for women's rights, respect for civilian leadership. they have struggled with local administration councils to ensure there is this vibrant and initiative taking root that has helped develop based on democratic pluralism. that is the way i am defining moderate. that being said, i think moderate groups make up a huge percentage of the opposition. especially the opposition that is fighting on the front lines and taking part in the primary battle against the syrian government. i have actually been documenting cases of the more extremist groups leaving the primary battle front and heading to areas where they are working on patterns of authority and

control and creating the framework of a safe haven. the vocalizations on creating safe havens has led to an unimpressive military record in confrontation. they claim credit for a lot of operations that they are not participating in. it is implementation of these more harsh principles of islamic lifestyle being pushed back. recently, i saw numerous demonstrations pushing back against more extreme measures they are trying to implement. i think this threat is having an impact on the opposition's ability to come together and forcing them to work together that they haven't in the past. finally, i think i will end on

this note about who their specific leaderships are and whether they are aligned with u.s. interest. based on my definition of moderate, i think there is a force inside of syria that can be relied on. if empowered, it could serve as a reliable governing partner that would not only be aligned with u.s. strategic interests but would also help create a governance system that would be conducive to the desires and demands of the population itself but would also help serve. >> elizabeth, thank you very much. your report is interesting on many levels.

for me, it really contrasts significantly with the message of the assad regime which is to say, remove us and the alternative is al qaeda. a message that has actually grown roots in certain quarters of the united states congress. faysal, the floor is yours. >> thank you. you have made a lot of strong points. i will be brief. despite the warnings within the debate, the conflict, i think we can all honestly agree that it is a regional conflict and a proxy war. the only difference is different proxy backers are involved to different degrees and with

different levels of commitment. examining the possible backlash or reactions of whatever level of ux action is taken, i think it is useful to think of possible military operations on a spectrum and examine the different scenarios to see how regions would react. the key point is, all of these actors involved are relatively weak and constrained to what they can and cannot do. i think that improves the prospects on one hand. it could mean -- the first scenario is the u.s. intervention that might actually

break the regime or shift the balance of force in the civil war. i don't think it is likely to start with that in mind but i do see that it could potentially escalate further down the line into that sort of operation. looking at iran, they have always struck me as highly risk- averse, very cautious despite their fervent ideology and rhetoric. their greatest asset here is their military capability in the region. if they do perceive that the regime is falling or is in

danger of being defeated, i think hezbollah is the first thing they would activate. would they do this against the israelis? yes, i think so. even though hezbollah itself is highly constrained, fighting in syria, trying to cover their backs in lebanon, this is one of the few scenarios i would imagine that they would be compelled by their own interest as well as by iran to fight the war. that would mean raising the cost u.s. and its allies of intervention against the regime. the other thing the iranians may resort to is carrying out proxy military attacks and other u.s. allied areas. syria itself, i believe despite all the bluster, is barely able to keep up the fight at home. certainly not capable of retaliating a significant way against u.s. interests. what they can do is further destabilize lebanon. that is a tool they have employed effectively in the

past. they do have strong intelligence networks there. over the past couple weeks, there were large-scale bombings in lebanon. sunni mosques, it is likely that islamist militants who are sunni were probably behind them. i believe that is a way of setting a price for involvement within the syrian conflict and also due to lebanese president and governments to word syrian behavior. that is something escalating. has below use of weapons of mass destruction, they may very well choose to use them liberally in the domestic conflict. that includes chemical weapons. i think the day after scenario is -- i believe this is probably already planned. an insurgency option in syria. one in which, it is a mirror of what is happening already. this is something they practiced in iraq. they would conduct a slow insurgency campaign to degrade

rebel assets inside syria. i do think there is a positive here which is that a decisive show of u.s. force in the region would rally regional allies and reinvigorate them. the likely outcome is a different question of course. within lebanon, i think there would be an escalation in violence simply because hezbollah has been successful at deterring their domestic sunni levels. i think they would be important to challenge hezbollah. you could say real spillover into lebanon. of course, on the other side of the spectrum is the slow-motion pinprick you described. i think it is clear to me with the original result of that would be. the iranians would calculate that u.s. rep lines can be crossed with relative impunity so long as the united states -- to restore cosmetic appearance. they are not compelled to make any significant concessions over a nuclear program. as for the regime itself, i think this would clarify to them what the rules of the game are.

what they are and are not allowed to do. they will likely be punished if they break those rules. i suspect in the immediate aftermath that they would stay away from using weapons of mass destruction and stick to conventional means. at least until they know how committed the u.s. is to shifting the balance in syria. i think one of the things they might do as well is employee hezbollah. it is not clear to me how active they have been in the rest of syria. there is more capacity they can take away from lebanon to fight conventional wars in syria. i imagine this would apply in damascus as well. i think hezbollah, lebanon and the real short and its rivals disheartened. turkey and jordan would be quite vindicated in the caution they have shown to shoulder this burden against the regime alone.

they are risk-averse because they see the u.s. commitment as faltering and week. the gcc feels very vulnerable due to perceived u.s. disengagement. i can also imagine that this would deepen their commitment to what they see as their own proxy in syria. for now, it seems that the convergence of what those should be, i am not sure that that would hold. that would have dire affects for the cohesion of the rebels and u.s. interest. the moderate rebel groups would be thoroughly discredited having gambled on strong u.s. backing. that would be to their own peril, to the u.s.'s peril and beneficial to others. that seems like a total

turkey and jordan would be quite vindicated in the caution they have shown to shoulder this burden against the regime alone. they are risk-averse because they see the u.s. commitment as faltering and week. the gcc feels very vulnerable due to perceived u.s. disengagement. i can also imagine that this would deepen their commitment to what they see as their own proxy in syria. for now, it seems that the convergence of what those should be, i am not sure that that would hold. that would have dire affects for the cohesion of the rebels and

u.s. interest. the moderate rebel groups would be thoroughly discredited having gambled on strong u.s. backing. that would be to their own peril, to the u.s.'s peril and beneficial to others. that seems like a total undermining of what the united states objectives are in syria. i think this pinprick strike may temporarily postpone the use of chemical weapons. it might change the calculus in a way that is detrimental to u.s. interests in the long run. the only way to see a different outcome from that regardless of what the u.s. the site studio is if this is accompanied by a genuine full-fledged effort to support the moderate rebel movements in syria.

. .

>> the middle east is a region that has a habit of constantly dividing against itself. in the 1950's and 1960's, there was a division. you see a similar division today, but the basis is a far more entrenched and ideological division.

there is iran and the resistance. this is what the iranian commander said yesterday, syria is part of a larger front of resistance. therefore, it has to be thought of along those terms. hezbollah, iran, syria, mobilizing against the sunni bloc. the region is divided. the region has been divided before in the 1960's. then it was to buttress its allies. also, with very close u.s.- israeli relationship which is beneficial to all the of the relationships the united states had in terms of its allies and in terms of deterring its adversaries. today, the u.s.-israeli relationship has worked its way through its own growing pains. the united states, for reasons i do not always understand, is less inclined to be involved in middle eastern conflicts and

rivalries. war fatigue. there is a propensity of this, and we are probably learning the lessons of the iraq war now. there is less inclination on the part of the american public, therefore the u.s. government, to be involved in relief. i think president obama's position on the middle east is contested in the capsule, and i think it is largely unassailable in the country. if president obama goes to st. louis, chicago, san francisco, los angeles, and seattle, he will get criticism for his reticence. and the president has actually invited that popular reticence by suggesting that east asia is where the future lies and the middle east is where old conflicts simmer. all these things have to be

taken into consideration as one thinks about iran policy. i will say one last thing. we really need an iran policy, not just a proliferation policy. we need to figure out how to negate iran's influence in the region, how to weaken the iranian regime at home. if you have a broad-based policy, it will fit in there. you kind of negotiated arms control agreement with a country that you are accusing of sponsoring terrorism and your capital at the same time. i mean, you're negotiating measures on the nuclear issue with a country that you are turning -- [indiscernible] we need an iran policy. all these pieces kind of fit together. >> let's spend a couple minutes before opening the panel to questions to the audience on two things that might give us more

credibility. one is to go after iran's financial energy and other economic matters, that we can take a much tougher line on. that might have a message to be conveyed. the other is, what can we do with respect to israel to give them certain kinds of weapons like the tankers, air-based tankers, to give them greater range and greater military credibility? netanyahu, for the moment, seems to have credibility. how would you all feel on these kinds of issues? >> i think one of the recommendations in the report, of course, is that, with regard to the sanctions that are already on the books, that we stop giving out as many passes to people as the president can, because there is waiver authority in the legislation,

but we need to stop giving people waivers and force them to actually go forward with the sanctions that are already on the books. i agree with john, i think there is more we can do on sanctions. i think if i were in the obama administration -- i do not think they would necessarily welcome me, but if i were in the administration, i think i would actually be not unhappy with voices being raised in the congress trying to push for harder sanctions. that is something that i think they can use. with regard to assurance and reassurance to israel, underpinning the already existing credibility that netanyahu has in tehran, in an earlier iteration of this panel we recommended certain military capabilities be made available to israel. congress actually took that up in some measure.

as far as i know, they still have not been transferred. there certainly are things that can be done. i think there are things we can be doing to do more visible testing. certain military capabilities we have, thinking of the massive ordinance penetrator which would almost certainly be involved in any kind of attack on the iranian nuclear program to which i think would have a very powerful, demonstrative impact on calculations in tehran. i think there are certainly things that can be done. >> i pretty much agree with what eric said. you can see that if negotiations take place with the iranians, i can see the negotiations not necessarily adding to the sanctions but being able to point to congress and say -- look, unless there is going to be an agreement, this is what is

going to happen. the fact is -- the sanctions have obviously had an effect on the iranians. that is why he was elected. i think there is a logic to that. there is also a logic for transferring additional capability to the israelis. there has been a lot done already, and i think that is something that is positive from our standpoint and sends a message from our standpoint. i have suggested that we should have a demonstration and put it on youtube, let it go viral, let the iranians see it. this is a capability that was developed basically to deal with them. a 30,000 pound bomb. you know, these are the kind of

things that would be helpful. i still think, at this point, given where we are with syria, the most important thing right now is to act on the red line and do it in a way that is seen as an effective and meaningful and serious. the other thing we just discussed at this point would be less important than that. in fact, if you try to do those things, it will be looked at as a kind of very limited compensation that is not very credible. in the context of doing that, i think a lot of other things you do, even things that would be less important, will be taken as much more serious. >> john? >> i agree, sanctions have been surprisingly effective and have helped bring us to where we are. i think the only debate is -- and yes, we can easily identify

additional measures with regard to sanctions and with regard to transfers to israel of useful military items. the only question is whether we should persist with continuing to move in that direction or whether we should declare a pause because we are pleased that rouhani has been elected and we want him to become an negotiating partner. on that issue, it is clear we need to continue and not take a pause. the pressure that has brought us to where we are should continue to be applied and it should be increased to the extent we can increase it to it we should not hesitate to do that for fear it will complicate the negotiations. on balance, over time, it will strengthen our hand in those negotiations. >> ok, thank you all very much. let me open the floor to questions. shall we start over there? >> [inaudible]

the russian quasi-alliance with both iran and syria -- it is not clear to me and i wonder what you all think about if we are more successful in following through on syria, whether we would throw russia and iran closer together, making it harder for us to have a more effective policy? related to that is the question about whether this whole p5 plus one structure serves our interests or serves to undermine as. i think it is curious that congress has been much more active on the sanctions issue against iran than the administration. the administration would essentially follow through with halfway measures, much less than congress would authorize.

on the p5 plus one, i think it is -- [inaudible] >> actually, i think effective action to enforce the red line against syria would actually undermine russian-iranian relations, rather than strengthened them. in the sense that, notwithstanding all his culminations, i do not think there is very much that president putin can or would do to actually get in the way of u.s. military action. i think that would send a very powerful message to tehran that russia's backing, when push comes to shove, might not be effective in keeping the united states from acting. we now know them captured documents that saddam hussein believed that support for both

france and russia, in particular, were going to keep him from having to face u.s. military force in 2003. that turned out to be a terrible miscalculation from his point of view. again, if we do something, and i want to associate myself with what dennis said, if we do something that is not cosmetic but is serious and seriously degrades syria's ability to operate its military forces, hit some of the pillars of the regime. i mean, we should not forget that this is a regime that is rooted in the air force. that is the service from which the current president of syria's father comes. if we are able to essentially ground that air force, keep it from flying, that will have a

very powerful impact. in the first session we had in june, i made the point then that we really are engaged now -- and this goes to a number of points that were just made, it is a struggle for mastery and the region with iran being one of the protagonist. the syria issue has to be seen in that light as well. i think effective action would do more to drive moscow and tehran apart than ring them together. >> i would like to add one quick point to that. you know, you could see some sort of tactical moves, and i would not dismiss that. i do not think the iranians have a lot of belief and the russians to begin with. the real question i think here is from the russian standpoint putin has positioned himself on

syria so he looks like he is the key actor. everybody has gone to him. i think for us to act, and i think the president has also said that he would do more to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, at least those in the opposition would be prepared to support. i think the more we do in terms of degrading the syrian capabilities and the more we do in terms of at least getting serious about providing support to those within the opposition that we think are deserving of it, that has a chance to affect the balance of power, not only between the opposition and the regime but within the opposition itself. that creates a very different set of incentives for the russians. right now, you know, they have very little incentive to change their behavior. so to the extent to which we are acting in a way that makes it

clear that it is time for change and the russians have did decide what to do. they can decide right away, but it creates a different kind of incentive for them. they can think of a solution without assad, which is not what they have been prepared to do up until this point. as to the larger question, on one hand, it is a very useful international mechanism for us because it adds to the sense that there is broader support for what we are doing. i think the question has always been -- what is the point at which preserving the unity of the p5 plus one comes at the cost of what you're trying to do vis-a-vis the iranians? that is something you constantly have to be re-assessing. >> one of the panelists mentioned before that the situation in the mideast reminds him of the 1960's. for me, watching this for decades, it reminds me of the

byzantine chinese opera. gentlemen, can any of you address the situation vis-?-vis turkey in all of this? whether it be iran, syria, or egypt and how this vibrates. >> the difficulty of addressing turkey is turkey is implicated in so many of these issues, obviously, as your question suggests. i did not want to take the rest of the time to actually go through it all. on syria, just suffice it to say that for better, for worse, for the moment the government of turkey and the united states government are on the same

wavelength about the importance of, as the president said two years ago, assad departing the scene. i think there has actually been some impatience on the part of the turks about how willing the united states was to actually make that happen. and also, unfortunately because, in addition to other things that have happened, turkish foreign policy has taken a much more sectarian turn over the last year or so as the no enemies with neighbors policy as sort of fallen apart. they have been perhaps more adventurous than they should have been in support for some elements of the sunni opposition, including al nusra. in a longer run, that will put us at odds with turkey over the future of syria as opposed to the present. >> i have two questions.

one, i am a little confused about -- does this work? i am confused about what exactly is the consensus of the group with respect -- [indiscernible] is there a consensus about this? it sounds like there is still disagreement about it. if so, i wonder what the preponderant view might the. [inaudible] a second brief question, is there any view with respect to the syrian crisis, whether iran should be included in any future diplomacy with respect to how to

end the war in syria? >> well, i think there is a consensus on prevention being through an objective. i think there is not a consensus on what is the right kind of proposal. you know, and i sort of outlined one view which is that you could a credible offer on the table, that either the iranians can respond to and accept it because they say they only want civil nuclear power or you expose them and they turn it down. that would involve a limited enrichment capability on their part. there is a disagreement on the part of some on the panel as to whether that is the right way or not.

as for the quo, i mean, they would get sanctions lifted, at least the sanctions related specifically to the nuclear program. as for whether they should be part of the political process on syria, my answer would be no. >> i think within the group there is agreement on the characterization that we should put forward that syria's credible proposal advances u.s. interests if accepted. there is the question of enrichment, whether zero enrichment, which is been the position up until now, should remain our position or whether we should show some modest flexibility on that. dennis has been on the side of showing some flexibility. others, like myself, would prefer to keep the current position of making a proposal that would allow no enrichment.

again, that has to do with our perceptions. >> [inaudible] >> we have not taken a vote, so i do not know with the answer to that question is. >> i hear you, but nothing that you said convinces me that we are going to do anything until the first missile is in the air or land on israel. would you comment on that? i hear what dennis says. i think sanctions are great. but i think this is where we are going. >> i do not know that that is something we can actually debate here. but i could say that this panel probably would not exist if we were not concerned that if there is an action, that we could end up essentially where you are describing. we are suggesting policies to help us avoid that outcome which

we agree is totally unacceptable. >> good answer. >> in yugoslavia, libya, afghanistan, we demonstrated that air power can affect regime change. syrian regime apparently, according to reports, was in the process of getting the upper hand in the civil war against the opposition. what do you think is the calculus of the regime to deploy chemical weapons when it was in the face of a very strong president, allies, and potentially invites the type of things that are being contemplated now -- what do you think were their calculations? >> you know, i think i will go back to a point that steve made

earlier about red lines, how they are drawn and how they are enforced. my observation of syrian behavior to mind others on the panel may have different views, has been that there has been over a two-year period that the conflict has intensified and grown more violent, that the regime itself has been very carefully and in a very calibrated way pushing the envelope. at first you saw airstrikes and use of scuds against civilian populations and small-scale use of chemical weapons that could be denied or fudged. and a slightly larger scale until you got what we saw a week or so ago. and i think this goes to the whole issue of, you know, how do you draw a red line and how do you enforce it? the perception on the part of the regime in damascus that no

matter what it did, it kept going and kept being able to get away with it because there would be pious enunciation's from the community and the united states but nothing would happen, i think it has emboldened more and more action. it is one of the reasons i think it is essential that the authorization for military force be approved by the congress and that the president execute it. >> i am not -- so the perception there are experts who have the perception that even after they took someone, they have quite the momentum that you described, that they were on the verge of winning this war. there was a lot of reporting that they were having a terribly difficult time in these suburbs in eastern damascus that they had basically thrown everything at it conventionally, had not been able to dislodge the force that was being fed through a rebel pipeline coming up through jordan, heavily funded by the saudis who had serious heavy

weaponry beginning to come through. it was in that context. being worried about the capital and what the rebels would do, they cannot get them out of these neighborhoods. the military decision was taken to throw them out and quite a large way. i think i would have to go back and read the transcript. there was a remarkable admission by secretary kerry yesterday in which he basically said -- well, why would they have not used it? the international community has said this is a redline. the united states has said this is a red line. yet, they have used used it a multiple number of times now. not once or twice or three times last spring but repeated use on smaller scales of cw. at the end of the day, this is what tyrants do.

larger powers, the question their credibility, if they are not willing to enforce it, they tell their people that nobody is going to come to help you. we're going to crush their well. at the end of the day, these are wars of will and morale. and assad telling these people and the entire syrian population that no one is going to help you, you are finished. there is not a damn think the united states can or will do about it. >> i think we will end this by quoting something from my home country of canada -- if you are going to try cross-country skiing for the first time, pick a small country. do not pick the united states of america. well, this issue is going to be a huge issue coming forward. i think we could not have found a better group than the people of this panel. i want to thank them all for

what was a very illuminating dialogue. thank you all very much. [applause] >> i want to thank the panel. as you can see, we could together a really excellent group here. obviously this is a pivotal time for both u.s. national security interests in both the middle east, and i hope you return here as we continue to address these issues going forward. thank you very much for attending. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> coming up this weekend,

congressional debate on syria, including the senate foreign relations meeting. you can watch that saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. the houseday morning, foreign affairs committee hearing with secretary of state john kerry, chuck hagel, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff dempsey. >> wilson was so intellectual, and he was almost academic. he was the only president with a phd. most of the book could have been written about him have been academic in nature. they miss the human side of this man. he was deeply emotional, passionate, romantic. he had two wives.

his first wife died. he fell in love with a woman and married a second time. wrote thousands of passionate love letters to each of these women. this is a real, living, breathing human being. i do not think we have seen that before. berg's biography of woodrow wilson releases next week. hear about it sunday night at &a." on c-span's "q >> we will continue u.s. talks on syria on the next "washington journal." then nato's response to syria. she'll take your questions about the diplomatic options available. cohen willn -- and

the discuss new ways about what it means to be a household in the u.s. liveington journal" is every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of events tell you about. beginning with the groupings institution discussion about china's economy. p.m., we will be at the center for american progress. for samantha powers comments. brookings institutions war.ssion on syria's civil this event include some state and defense department officials.

>> good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for being here to discuss syria. because of the last minutes arrangement, fiona hill is on the way down. she doesn't need to hear herself for my fellow analysts introduced. i am delighted to be joined by you today and also the distinguished lineup of my colleagues to discuss the important issue of what we should do with syria, especially the armed response or any response to the august 21st tragedy, where chemical weapons appear to have been used in parts of damascus. but more generally, the conflict will be fair game for discussion and your questions. i would like to have an

introduction for each of my colleagues. i would like to start with a question to illuminate or bring out areas of their expertise but to get the different viewpoints at the table. and then, we will speak a little bit about ourselves and go to you at about the halfway point. i am joined by roos riddell -- bruce riddell. he joined brookings about half a dozen years ago. an expert on counterterrorism and south asia and much of the middle east. his latest book is about the u.s. india pakistan history over the years. he has in a great deal of work on counterterrorism and certainly al qaeda. and next to him is michael the ran, who spent a number of years at the national security council during the george bush administration. writing a book about the historical background in the

middle east, and president eisenhower specifically but he has written a great deal about syria. this has been his focus for a decade or longer. those of you who follow opinion pages have seen his work. and joining us is david shapiro, who spent a number of years in the obama administration working on this very issue. like others he is speaking only for himself but nonetheless he will benefit from -- we will benefit from the experience and insights he gained there. he is also the co-author of one of the greatest books of the role of nato, and the war in iraq. and the international debate that is ongoing on the question. suzanne maloney is one of the best experts on iran but one of the best experts on the

sanctions history that has become so important in regards to that country. maybe not so separate. one question is to what extent is the nuclear issue of iran intertwined with the syrian chemical issue. there are red lines on both. and they are a major antagonist in syria. and now, here is the own the hill, who runs the u.s. bureau center. i appreciate your combining many things into a busy afternoon. she has written, among others and's, the best and most compelling book on vladimir putin, a key player in this as well. perhaps the person the president is spending some time with today, and some fashion or another, and whose role in the conflict will continue to be important.

let me please begin with bruce. i would like you just to recap where we stand and what we know about what happened august 21 and how airtight the case really is that his forces used chemical weapons against syrian insurgent related populations? >> the good news for the administration on the intelligence issue is a case that is pretty compelling. none of us, at least none of us that i know of, have seen the secret intelligence on which they are making the case. we have seen the summaries they have put out, and that the british and french have put out. these summaries make a compelling case that there was the use of chemical weapons on the 21st of august. there is a lot of social media evidence that is out there. i would hope that the human inspectors will confirm that there was the use of a nerve agent, sarah and gas.

the question is, who ordered this done? the u.s. government traces the attack and seems to have intelligence that traces the attack to be involved with research scientific. they are known by their accor mentum -- they are known by their acronym. my analysts uncovered them in the 1980s, we were the first people to uncover the syrian chemical weapons program. they were at the basis of it. they do not actually fire the weapons but create the weapons, bring them to the battlefield and make sure that they are put together so that you get the biggest bang for your buck. they report directly to the office of the president and

serious, protected by syrian air force intelligence. this establishes that the syrian government has a high-level to order this attack. we cannot say that bashar al- assad personally ordered this but the government is responsible for the actions of those who fall underneath them. this looks like a compelling case. responsible after the fact -- the capability of an enemy in the future. the intelligence there was politicized, and any member of congress who took the time in 2002 to read the classified national intelligence estimate would discover that this was full of dissent and full of -- the majority case was just plain wrong. anyone who read this would see

that the nuclear laboratories theory was hogwash. who should you listen to? i would listen to the people who make nuclear weapons. we have no reason to believe there is anything like that over this case. back in 2002 and 2003, there was widespread international difference. the french and germans and -- said that they are wrong. we have consent except for the onus government, who say chemical weapons were not used by the syrian government. and also making the administration's case, this is part of the business of doing body counts. i thought the intelligence community got out of the business of body counts after we said we killed every member of

the viet cong six times. >> i will come back you to talk about the al qaeda affiliates, and their prospects and the inadvertent assistance. first i will go to michael. you are an advocate for action in syria. i would like to put both questions on the table. what is the case for acting in direct response to the august 21st apparent chemical weapons usage in the way that president bob -- president obama has outlined? a single purpose discrete attack and response? what is the more general case for changing american policy to a more muscular approach? can you really support a limited strike as the president proposes without revising all of our policy?

>> this is exactly right. among the advocates for action, there are two separate frames of reference. the president's frame of reference and then the john mccain frame of reference. i am more in the john mccain camp than the president. the president would say, as he did yesterday, that not just he but the international community and congress has set a red line about the use of these weapons. we cannot sit back and allow them to be used without taking some kind of action. if we don't they will be used again. john kerry said yesterday in the house, the foreign affairs committee meeting that there is a 100 or send chance that if we don't do something they will be used again. the mccain frame of reference is a bit skeptical about this.

it is concerned, that a one and done attack will not necessarily the terror assad -- will not nest -- will not necessarily deter assad. what will we do to assure that two days of attacks will have the effect that we say it is going to have? john mccain is calling for -- this is a civil war, this will not end until one side wins. we have to decide which side we are on. and support that side to win. he argues for much greater support for the free syrian army. he says, the last time that he was shown to use chemical weapons in april, you said you would on the free syrian army and those arms have not shown up yet.

i would like to see more and a much greater commitment to changing the balance of power on the ground and on the battlefield. that put the president in an uncomfortable position. now he is talking about the capability of the assad government. this is to bring john mccain on board that the same time he talks about limited strikes, this is to keep the democratic supporters in a narrower frame of reference. when talking to mccain, the emphasis is on degraded, talking to the democrats it is on limited. this leaves us with a big question. what is the overall strategy to syria and how does this fit into i have one more point of my own personal opinion. i think we have to do this

because our credibility is on the line. our credibility across the board, in general there is a feeling throughout the region that the united states is receiving from the region, leaving its allies exposed on the battlefield. this is very dangerous for us in many ways. i think it is important to act. but the president doesn't have to answer this question about how it fits into a more broad strategy. >> i will ask jeremy to respond. i know you are skeptical of many of the arguments you have just heard from michael, and i would like to invite you to say whether you think we should respond specifically and if we should revise our syrian policy more generally. >> there is an important point of agreement between michael and i. i should emphasize this strongly.

when he says it is difficult to sustain this limited, calibrated intervention in american politics, this is a very important point. there is a slippery slope here, and i think that we saw this just yesterday in the senate resolution. john mccain was able to get in a further goal about changing the balance of power on the ground into the senate resolution. it is very difficult to hold the line with this sort of halfway measure that the president has proposed. we are on a slow motion walk down a slippery slope. and we have been for some time. every decision that we make, first is to say that he must go, then it is to give recognition to the opposition, then to give assistance then to draw the red

line, then provide legal assistance and now there is the western of the strike. these steps towards intervention entail both -- the last one entails the next one and each time we hear the argument that greater credibility is on the line. what that means and i think that michael agrees with this is this is a consequential decision, an important step down the slippery slope that is unlikely to be the last. this is probably the extent of our agreement. when i look at the specific case that the administration has made i have some for why we would strike now. i have some problems with this. there are two elements to this that i think the administration has made most strongly, and i am critical to assess. the first is the question of credibility that michael brought

up. john stuart refers to this as seventh-grade diplomacy. this is a popular notion out there but we should talk about it. this is the idea that gave us the vietnam war. i think we should interrogate this more carefully. when i look at u.s. practice over the last 20 years and the use of force, which is my project here at brookings institute, i don't see the reputation of a country that is unwilling to use force. i don't see the reputation of an entry that is timid as a political culture. we have used force for issues great and small, all over the world and has the reputation in most of the world as -- and we have done this under democratic and republican administrations,

and under the obama administration. we have the reputation after the war in iraq for using force incompetently and recklessly. the reputation in the broad world beyond the middle east and particularly when you talk to the chinese, this is how they see our middle eastern adventures. a country that is wasting their power and wasting their resources on issues which are active -- actually peripheral to the international policy. this is eroding our credibility in the wide world. i would note as a historical point that empires don't fall because they are timid in their use of military power. the story of empires is that they fall because they are reckless and overuse their military power. we should take that into account.

the second is the use of chemical weapons, which has been raised in the idea that enforcing the norm against chemical weapons is critical to their future use in syria and beyond. this is a misunderstanding, of what has prevented him ago weapons use over the last 100 years. it has not been the question of enforcement. there has never been an enforcement of the chemical weapons and as we know, saddam hussein used these weapons during the war between iraq and iran, and in kurdistan to great effect. the reason these have not been used very much in the last 100 years is because there is the lack of utility in the use of chemical weapons. they are not actually that useful. it is possible that the assad regime is finding this out.

but the place that was attacked did not fall to the syrian army. this is still in rebel hands. so from my point of view, looking at these issues, the red line that was strong last year was a mistake. it is important not to double down on that mistake and not do something stupid just because you did something stupid before. i think that again, michael has a point, if you are going to get more deeply involved in the syrian problem, you need a plan to stabilize syria. i saw a lot of plans to topple this regime. but not many plans to stabilize syria. this is what i came to call the yada yada yada doctrine.

topple assad, and yada yada yada, there is peace in syria. we yada yada yada'd the most important part. we never figured out how to do this in iraq and afghanistan and there is little confidence that we could do this in syria. works one clarifying point, you were very good -- but you are not worried that the attacks will fail in the sense of accidentally disbursing a lot of agent or not necessarily leading to a retaliation -- i assume you worry a little bit about the latter. but you say that -- you seem to say that the americans will not be content and this will be one step to a larger quagmire that you would be opposed to.

irrespective of the immediate provocation? >> i think it is difficult to imagine the attack failing on its own terms since it is not supposed to accomplish anything. we can certainly send in the cruise missiles, and destroy some chemical weapons delivery systems. i do assume that the military is careful enough not to disperse chemical weapons and kill everybody in the middle east, which is something that we looked at. i think that they can do that. but this is not even intended to accomplish anything in the syrian civil war. it simply begs the question. >> this leads into the questions i have horses and. one question, is there a link between the red line in syria and iran. are we improving or worsening our prospects for nuclear deal

with iran if we attack assad? there is a new president in tehran. he seems more open to the united states. should we jeopardize this? and is there, in your mind, a linkage? will they see in action by the americans to go for the nuclear weapons that they have wanted for a long time, but held back on going the last 10 yards? >> to the extent that they interpret american passiveness for their own weapon development programs, that horse left the bar and a couple of decades ago. their view of presidents and international norms, when it regards the use of chemical weapons was really crystallized

during the 1980s, and the use by saddam hussein. and the history of the international community and as recent revelations have shown, there is perfect awareness by the part of the reagan administration and other western governments about what was happening in iraq, and the use of chemical agents against soldiers and civilians. this is a worldview that has been set. from that experience they believe the american invocation of international law on nonproliferation is entirely able to be manipulated and it is not a fixed idea of international law, but the utilitarian implication of these principles to further their aims. they see this as an effort to destabilize the region, acquiring a greater hold of

resources for the region and quell the rising powers that may be challenging to the united states. this is the rhetoric we heard out of the ayatollah today when he talked about the chemical weapons attacks for a pretext. he was not saying that the attack never happened. we have seen these different interpretations and i would argue something of a pivot i the leadership of iran away from the argument that this was simple a use -- simply a use of weapons by the resistance, this is a walk back by the former president this was a use of chemical weapons by the government. but our actions, or lack the road in syria, are not going to further compel them to a nuclear weapons acquisition objective. the entire worldview was framed by the 1980s.

i don't know if you will come back to this wetjen but i want to touch upon the second question, the relationship between the nuclear -- nuclear negotiations and our concerns in syria. you have this new president who was elected very clearly by the people and allowed to be elected by the establishment with a very explicit mandate, to get some sort of progress on the nuclear issue. in order to reengage with the international economy. in order to avoid some sort of of people at home. the economy has conditions -- the economy and conditions have deteriorated so much in the last few years. they did not touch the issue of serious during their own presidential campaign in late may and early june.

syria was almost off the table entirely and they were focused on the nuclear issue. president rohani -- we have seen many signals including the sultan of oman and a former u.s. official associated with the united nations visiting tehran and there are signals being passed back and forth between the two governments. they don't have the luxury of avoiding the syrian question. it does require row heidi -- rohani to control the hardliners, who have an ideological commitment to the longest standing ally in the arab world. and then the signal to the international community, that even on a sensitive question, iran can react in the right

way. that signal has happened over social media perhaps more than anywhere else, where the president has been tweeting and a foreign minister is on facebook. but this is meaningful. the fact we see restraint in the rhetoric of the supreme leader, we don't see a rush to defend assad. this is an indication that the iranians will play carefully. the president i have compared this to, and the best case scenario for the united states, it behaves a little bit in the same fashion that the former president, roston johnny -- rastanjani used in kuwait in 1991. the relationship with saddam hussein was problematic. but this was an episode that was

very contentious at home. a lot of them wanted to see them go to the barricades. because the president and his mission and mandate was to fix the economy, had to rein in his own radicals to step back from that conflict and project neutrality. rouhani has a great challenge ahead of himself but that is what he is trying to do. >> it sounds like they are unlikely to unleash hezbollah -- he is trying to do. >> it sounds like they are unlikely to unleash hezbollah. they don't want to take down their own relationship with washington. is this a fair interpretation or is there a chance that there will be a quieter instigation, hezbollah may attack syria --

>> making predictions in regard to them is a tricky proposition. what we see is the effort to embrace a more pragmatic position. but the relationship is complicated. they are closely aligned and tremendously supportive of hezbollah. they don't control them, they don't pull the strings and this is an autonomous organization. in the past, in regard to syria they have differed in their views and we cannot pick what they will do based on rouhani's preferences by the supreme leader to get a deal on the nuclear issue. it is in the realm of possibility that the hardliners who are invested in damascus will look for ways to respond and retaliate against the united states.

this will be an important indication of where the power lies. >> i should have mentioned, suzanne has a blog on iran and the new leadership and the nuclear negotiations -- this will be covered. can you remind us of the address? www.iran -- >> mr. putin. there are many things you may want to say, as he is hosting our president. beyond that, let me put the question to you this way. it looks to me like he is actually accomplishing his goal because i assume he cares less about bishara al-assad -- bishara al-assad -- bashar al- assad. he has another opportunity to do that and slow us down globally that is a good day and that is

probably, therefore the way that this debate is playing out now with the rest of the world wavering and the u.s. congress not knowing which way to go, nos is just what he would have ordered. am i being too cynical? how would you interpret his real interest in the crisis? >> if he was listening to this, he would be more convinced he was making the right choice all along. on no intervention in syria. he has actually said that recently a number of interviews and we have seen him out and about all over the place expressing his thoughts that he has kept previously behind. assad is not the endgame in